I see no differences. I suppose use strict; use warnings; is with me since ever. It is also less cacophonic in sentences: use strict and warnings or...

If both are at the top of the program, again I see no differences. If you put a syntax error between them the error is the same:

io@COMP:C>cat sw.pl

use strict;

0

use warnings;

io@COMP:C>perl sw.pl

"use" not allowed in expression at sw.pl line 5, at end of line
syntax error at sw.pl line 5, near "use warnings"
Execution of sw.pl aborted due to compilation errors.

io@COMP:C>cat ws.pl

use warnings;

0

use strict;

io@COMP:C>perl ws.pl

"use" not allowed in expression at ws.pl line 5, at end of line
syntax error at ws.pl line 5, near "use strict"
Execution of ws.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
[download]

Obviously strict can catch something and warnings too, but is a rare situation:

io@COMP:C>cat sw.pl

use strict;
$x=1;
use warnings;

io@COMP:C>perl sw.pl

Global symbol "$x" requires explicit package name (did you forget to d
+eclare "my $x"?) at sw.pl line 2.
BEGIN not safe after errors--compilation aborted at sw.pl line 3.


io@COMP:C>cat ws.pl

use warnings;
$x=1;
use strict;

io@COMP:C>perl ws.pl

Name "main::x" used only once: possible typo at ws.pl line 2.
[download]

So I suppose it is a matter of taste.

The only important thing is to use them both everytime ;)

L*

There probably is no right answer, but I always use the opposite. I think that at one time, I considered 'strict' more important. This might be an interesting topic for the 'Voting Booth'.
Bill

This might be an interesting topic for the 'Voting Booth'.

++ I was thinking the same thing. You can submit your idea here if you want. Although since you can also have an implicit strict by selecting a version, and use the shebang options to enable warnings that's a lot of different ways to do basically the same thing.

#!/usr/bin/perl -W
# warnings enabled globally on previous line  
use v5.20; # implicit use strict;
use strict; # No impact
use warnings; # No impact
[download]

Personally it's always strict then warnings (in that order), sometimes preceded by the version (I always have an explicit strict even when implicitly activated).

Edit: whoops, choroba already submitted the poll idea

Interesting. Can it, though? Edit to clarify: Was the feeling correct, though?

$_="msh210";$"=$\;@_=@{[split//,uc]}[2,0];$_="@_$\1";$\=$/;++$_[0]for$...1;print lc substr crypt($_,"@_"),1,6

I use strict before warnings. Honestly, though, I think this was originally a case of "monkey see, monkey do," and now it is habit.

For what it is worth, strict is the older of the pragmas, going all the way back to 5.0. The warnings pragma was introduced in 5.6. Before that, you used $^W to turn on warnings. No, I'm not that old -- I got the information from the corelist script, which comes with Module::CoreList.

use strict;
use warnings;

for purely aesthetic reasons.

For example, when I type a paragraph,
I sometimes pay attention to make sure
that lines become increasingly longer as
the paragraph is beginning, and the lines
become shorter as you get near the end.

See above example ^

When I write if-and-elsif chain, I do this:

   if (condition) { do something; }
elsif (condition) { do something; }
elsif (condition) { do something; }
else              { do something; }

It's easier to read.

Okay, call me OCD.

I agree. It occurred to me that if code reading is harder work than writing, then, on subconscious level, 1st line being shorter than the 2nd is perceived as gradual increase in amount of required effort, and so slightly less stress for a reader. So not only use strict; comes 1st, but, when I have to break too long line in two and there are no parts to align vertically, I'd prefer 1st line shorter and 2nd line longer, more often than not. As ridiculous as it is, when analysed logically.

From Gulliver's Travels:

How do you break an egg? Are you a Big-Endian or a Little-Endian?

Create a poll. Best regards, Karl

Choice is the only option.

And is there any reason not to simply do this?

use strictures;

Not only does "strictures" turn on warnings, but also makes several of them fatal at the same time (though not the problematic ones.) I do this in all my code for $work since I know I am on a version of Perl that supports it.

I do just that. But opinions differ pretty widely and somewhat strongly. So… :P

There's no functional difference.

I use use strict; first because I feel that use warnings; should warn if use strict; isn't being used. :) (It doesn't, though)

I tend to put strict before warnings, but only because that's the way that I learned it.

TIMTOWTDI.

use strict, warnings;
use strict && warnings;
use for (strict, warnings); # no not really

use 5.12.0; # <- turns on strict
use strict; # <- but same length :-(

use 5.12.0; # <- turns on strict
use strict; # <- but same length :-(
[download]

Same length, but use VERSION also turns on the corresponding feature bundle, which is IMHO pretty useful on newer versions of Perl. Also, the use 5.012; and use v5.12; forms are one character shorter :-)

I hate programs that use 5.XX. Sometimes, I can't run them in an older Perl, but the only thing that's needed from the version feature bundle is say which started to exist in 5.10. I love explicit feature lists; that's also why I created Syntax::Construct.
map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]